JUDGMENT : HARISANKAR V. MENO, J. The petitioners were originally appointed as the staff of “Shramik Vidyapeeth” which has been later renamed as “Jan Shikshan Sansthans (hereinafter referred to as ‘JSS’)” – represented by respondents 5 and 6. The petitioners had raised a claim for pay parity with respect to Central Government employees as well as Public Sector Undertakings insofar as the petitioners were also appointed by following the selection procedure etc., as are being undertaken while appointing the Central Government employees. The prayer made as above was not accepted. The petitioners as well as similar staff of JSS in other States had approached the Apex Court, seeking the afore benefit. By Ext.P26 order dated 11.07.2023, the Apex Court found that it is ultimately for the petitioners to approach the High Courts concerned, and in such circumstances, leaving open the liberty as above, dismissed the writ petitions presented under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It is in such circumstances that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs : “i. Declare the Petitioners as the permanent employees, of the Central Government by considering that the 5 th Respondent Institution is presently part of the 3 rd Respondent Ministry, Govt. of India and by confirming their service and status as regular employees of Jan Shikshan Sansthans from the date of their initial appointments. ii. Declare that non-extending of benefits to the Petitioners as applicable to the Central Government Employees to the Petitioners herein (employees of JSS, Thiruvananthapuram) as extended to employees of JSS Delhi, is illegal and discriminatory. iii. To Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents 1 to 4 to implement the recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission from 01.01.2006 and 7 th Pay Commission from 01.01.2016 and to pay all the consequential benefits to the Petitioners herein (regular employees of Jan Shikshan Sansthans) at par with Central Government Employees and to grant them all consequential benefits. iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents 1 to 4 to release the arrears of revised benefits from 01.01.2006, i.e., the date from which the Pay Scales as per 6 th CPC were implemented to other Central Autonomous Institutions/Central Government Employees, till date as per entitlement of regular staff of JSS. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents 1 to 4 to release the arrears of revised benefits from 01.01.2006, i.e., the date from which the Pay Scales as per 6 th CPC were implemented to other Central Autonomous Institutions/Central Government Employees, till date as per entitlement of regular staff of JSS. v. To Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents 1 to 4 to release the arrears of revised benefits from 01.01.2016, i.e., the date from which the Pay Scales as per 7 th CPC were implemented to other Central Autonomous Institutions/Central Government Employees, till date as per entitlement of regular staff of JSS.” 2. I have heard Sri.Godwin Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Jagadeesh Lakshman, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondents 1 to 4, as well as Sri.P.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Helen P.A., the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6. 3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court as noticed earlier, similar issue was considered by the High Court of Karnataka, leading to the pronouncement of Ext.P27 order . The matter has been considered in extenso, by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, ultimately finding as under; “20. If the Scheme framed by the Union envisages a Board to manage the Scheme and if the Scheme also stipulates, not only the manner in which the salaries of the employees were to be paid, but also the manner in which they were to be recruited, it is obvious that the Union of India was, in essence, the Principal Employer. Merely because an institution is set up by the Government and arrangements are made through the Institution, the Union of India cannot disown its responsibility to pay those employees who had been appointed pursuant to the Scheme which had been floated through the SVPs. 21. Merely because an institution is set up by the Government and arrangements are made through the Institution, the Union of India cannot disown its responsibility to pay those employees who had been appointed pursuant to the Scheme which had been floated through the SVPs. 21. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the petitioners were appointed to implement a Programme /Scheme flouted by the Union of India and the Scheme clearly stated that it was permissible for the Board of Management to engage the staff and pay the same pay-scales as are applicable to the Central Government employees, it is clear that the employees of the SVP, though recruited by the Board of Management of the SVP, would, nevertheless, be entitled to the same pay and other benefits that a Central Government employee holding a comparable post, is entitled under the Rules framed by the Union Government. 22. In light of the fact that the petitioners were employed pursuant to Recruitment Notifications issued and the process of selection, which was detailed in the Guidelines framed by the Government, was followed and the notification also assured them of the pay-scales, Dearness Allowance and other allowances on par with the Central Government Employees, the petitioners would be entitled to the same pay- scales, allowances and other benefits as that of a similarly placed Central Government employees holding a comparable post. 23. As a further consequence, all the benefits of the Central Government employees that are extended pursuant to 5 th and 6 th CPCs would also have to be extended to the petitioners. 24. As noticed above, the extension of 5 th and 6 th CPCs were denied only because of an outer limit set by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, as indicated in the Inspection Report, and therefore, the Central Government would have to necessarily extend all the benefits which it has withheld indirectly by imposing a ceiling limit. 25. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in respect of the JSS, Delhi, the same benefits, which are available to the Central Government employees, had been extended and this discrimination is only in respect of the JSS, Bengaluru. 26. This contention is not seriously disputed. 25. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in respect of the JSS, Delhi, the same benefits, which are available to the Central Government employees, had been extended and this discrimination is only in respect of the JSS, Bengaluru. 26. This contention is not seriously disputed. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners would be entitled to the same pay- scales and allowances as are applicable to the Central Government employees, including the extension of 5 th and 6 th CPCs from the dates on which they fell due. 27. It is needless to state that the pensionary / terminal benefits that are applicable to the Central Government employees would also, as a consequence, be applicable to the employees of the SVPs, including the petitioners herein. 28. These benefits shall be computed and made over to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” In my opinion, insofar as the issue has been extensively considered by the High Court of Karnataka, which found that the petitioners, having been appointed pursuant to the recruitment notifications issued and the selection process conducted in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Government, pay parity requires to be extended to the petitioners also, requires to be accepted. 4. Though, Sri.Jagadeesh Lakshman, the learned Senior Panel Counsel on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, pointed out that he is disputing the contention which found favour with the High Court of Karnataka as noticed in paragraph No.25 of Ext.P27 order , with reference to the extension of benefits as regards JSS, Delhi, I am of the opinion that insofar as that was only one among the reasons pointed out in Ext.P27 order , the benefits are required to be extended to the petitioners herein also for the other reasons highlighted in the afore order. Though he also pointed out that the order at Ext.P27 has been challenged before the High Court of Karnataka, admittedly, no stay has been granted. 5. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioners, similarly placed, also requires to be extended the benefits as found to be due to them pursuant to Ext.P27 order . 6. 5. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioners, similarly placed, also requires to be extended the benefits as found to be due to them pursuant to Ext.P27 order . 6. At the same time, this Court takes note of the contention raised by Sri.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 5 and 6, that ultimately if an appropriate direction is not issued as regards the requirement of payment by the Central Government, respondents 5 and 6 may have to face contempt in subsequent proceedings. He would further point out that, it is only when the funds are allocated by the Central Government, respondents 5 and 6 could disburse payments to the petitioners herein. 7. I find much force in the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel as above, especially since the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Godwin also states that it is for the Central Government to make allocation of funds for meeting the expenses required for extending benefits to the petitioners. In such circumstances, I allow this writ petition, holding that the petitioners would also be entitled for the benefits like pay, service, status etc., as applicable to the regular employees in the Central Government. It is for the petitioners to bring to the notice of respondents 1 to 4, as regards this judgment and also seek disbursement of appropriate funds for meeting the liability of respondents 5 and 6.